The purpose of this study was to assess the practices that have been carried out byrnUnity University and St. Mary's University College in training and development of theirrnacademic staff during the pas t five years, and also to investigate those factors that hadrnbeen constraining such endeavors. To this effect, the comparative survey researchrnmethod was employed. Questionnaire, interview and documentary analysis were usedrnas instruments of data collection. Data were collected from 95 randomly selectedrnacademic staff (50 from UU and 45 from SMUC). In order to get sufficient data, humanrnresource managers and Academic Vice Presidents of the two institutions were alsorninterviewed. Gathered data were analyzed employing both descriptive (frequencyrncounts and percentage) and inferential (Chi-square test) statistics.rnThe findings of the study revealed that the two institutions did not have a separaterntraining and development department .Most of the programs in UU were dominated byrnformal education programs and there were less emphasis given to short term trainingsrnand in the case of SMUC, the practice was vice versa. On the other hand, it wasrnobserved that SMUC has a relatively good practice of conducting academic staff needsrnassessment although it 'was mostly done by top level managers alone in the tworninstitutions. The study also revealed that the training and development activities of UUrnwere guided by training and development policy where as SMUC did not have thernpolicy. There were no well developed evaluation schemes in both institutions by whichrnthe achievement of program objectives and outcomes can be evaluated. Besides, thernstrategic plan of the two institutions were found to be clearly defined but their trainingrnand development plans were not incorporated in to departments' plan as well as to thernstrategic plan of the institution. Nevertheless, the available limited practices ofrndesigning and implementing training and development programs had been hindered byrnlack of top management. commitment, adequate budget, absence of training andrndevelopment department, current government regulation on the post graduate and PhDrnprograms and low support from the MoE, turnover after completing formal educationrnprograms, and attitude of the academic staff towards short term training.rnIn light of these findings, the following recommendations are forwarded. Firstly, needsrnassessment practice of the two institutions has to involve all stakeholders and shouldrnbe done at organizational, individual and job level. Secondly, SMUC should preparerntraining and development policy and both institutions should well communicate thernpolicy to the academic staff Thirdly, both institutions should design a scheme by whichrnthe out come of the program can be evaluated. Fourthly, both institutions shouldrnincorporate their training and development plans in to each department, faculty, andrnmore comprehensively to the institutions' strategic plan. Lastly, in order to overcomernproblems that constrained their efforts, attention should be given to increasernmanagement commitment and organize their training and development activities in to arnseparate department, MoE and HERQA should offer different short term and formalrneducation (post graduate and PhD) programs to academic staff of the institutions, UUrnshould giving attention to short term trainings in addition to strengthening the formalrneducation programs offered to the academic staff, and SMUC should evaluate trainees'rnreaction for a program before implementation so that corrective actions can be taken.